tests: Verify that the huge page size is valid.
Signed-off-by: Jon Tollefson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -u libhugetlbfs-1.2.orig/tests/mlock.c libhugetlbfs-1.2/tests/mlock.c
--- libhugetlbfs-1.2.orig/tests/mlock.c 2007-09-10 08:27:44.0 -0500
+++ libhugetlbfs-1.2/tests/mlock.c 2008-02-
On 29.02.2008 [17:32:25 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Move these definitions from elflink.c to libhugetlbfs_internal.h
> for use in other source files:
> ALIGN_UP
> ALIGN_DOWN
> SLICE_LOW_SHIFT
> SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT
>
> Change morecore.c to use SLICE_LOW_SHIFT and SLICE_HIG
On 29.02.2008 [15:48:14 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> gethugepagesize() returns a non-positive value when it fails, use a
>> inequality comparison to make that explicit. This fixes segfaults with
>> 16G hugepages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PRO
Move these definitions from elflink.c to libhugetlbfs_internal.h
for use in other source files:
ALIGN_UP
ALIGN_DOWN
SLICE_LOW_SHIFT
SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT
Change morecore.c to use SLICE_LOW_SHIFT and SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT.
A future patch is planned to use ALIGN_UP and ALIGN_D
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> gethugepagesize() returns a non-positive value when it fails, use a
> inequality comparison to make that explicit. This fixes segfaults with
> 16G hugepages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff --git a/morecore.c b/morecore.c
> index 39
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 13:42 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:56:47PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > So, with the 6-patch drop I did today, we have between 23 and 29 patches
> > post 1.2. How are folks feeling about that? I am starting to lean
> > towards cutting a 1.3
Nish,
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 29.02.2008 [09:21:22 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> Yes... SLES10 doesn't have the dynamic pool, unfortunately. Our
>> customers have such a variety of jobs that there isn't one hugepage
>> pool size that will work for all applications. With the 2.16 kern
Hi Nishanth,
I'll pipe up here since I ran into this directly.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:33:16AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >>> 2. Most distros have a default mlock limit well below the size of
> >>> one hugepage. (The kernel default is 8 base pages.)
> >> We usually advise custo
中层经理培训--企业会员套餐（6天）
（为了保证学习质量，每次班不超过80人）
━━━
备注：
咨询电话：0755-26075365 26075429 22008632
传真：0755-61351396
联 系 人：凌小姐 彭小姐
主办单位: 众人行管理咨询
专业培训中层管理队伍的培训公司
众人行管理咨询是一家专门为企业中层管理队伍提供实战技能训练课程的培训机构，
在国内率先提出系统的中
On 29.02.2008 [09:21:22 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nish,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> On 27.02.2008 [16:12:14 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>>> hugetlbfs_morecore() is currently calling mlock() presumably to
>>> instantiate newly-mapped hugepages before retu
gethugepagesize() returns a non-positive value when it fails, use a
inequality comparison to make that explicit. This fixes segfaults with
16G hugepages.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/morecore.c b/morecore.c
index 39020f8..56fe84b 100644
--- a/morecore.c
+++
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>>> On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 26.02.2
Nish,
Thanks for the feedback!
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.02.2008 [16:12:14 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> hugetlbfs_morecore() is currently calling mlock() presumably to
>> instantiate newly-mapped hugepages before returning to malloc().
>>
>> However, this is ineffective for two reas
13 matches
Mail list logo
